Gay Patriot Header Image

From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left

In the comments for my last post on Obamacare commenter Ignatius began his discussion of the legislation’s undesirable albeit unstated aims with the observation: “I believe that political discussions would be much easier if those on the right jettisoned this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions.”  I highlighted that sentence in a subsequent comment, and other commenters took up the theme, as well.

Commenter Eddie Swaim observed:

While reading the comments about “the left,” it suddenly occurred to me that after listening to Rush Limbaugh for 25 years, he has always been careful to separate “the left” politicians in D.C. from “the left” common everyday folk. I always agreed with him but now I’m not so sure. Most of the gay male liberals that I know fall right in line with the D.C. politicians. Anything and everything is o.k. if it hurts [conservatism] or wins them a battle against the right, whether or not their action is legal or ethical. The ends always justify the means.

Likewise, commenter Steve linked to this video of Ann Coulter discussing the tendency of liberals and the lamestream media to fall back on “racial demagoguery” to advance their agenda in cases like the Zimmerman trial.

I thought of all three comments when I came across another link to an article by John Hawkins dated March 27, 2012.  Hawkins’ article is entitled “5 Uncomfortable Truths About Liberals,” and I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.  For the moment, though, I’ve summarized his five points below.  Hawkins writes that:

1) Most liberals are hateful people.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people.

4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant.

Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation.  There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.

I would say, though, that in both the Zimmerman case and in the debates (and protests) over late-term abortion restrictions in Texas, we’ve seen many of the traits Hawkins describes displayed quite openly by many leftists.

Likewise, consider this article in The Advocate which a Facebook acquaintance brought to my attention.  The article focuses on the “mighty change of heart” which many Mormons have undergone on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.  True to what both Hawkins and our commenters noted, most gay leftists will have none of it, as is very evident from their comments on the Advocate article.  Rather than welcome the changes underway in the LDS church, they are expressing their hatred and intolerance for the Mormons in very hostile language.  Read the comments there and see for yourself.

Now while I know a number of our readers might believe that the Mormons brought the hatred on themselves through the church’s advocacy against Proposition 8 in California in 2008, I’d point out a few things that the left never will, namely: 1). Despite what the HRC and its allies would have us believe, opposition to gay marriage isn’t necessarily motivated by hate, however easy or convenient it may be to believe that, and 2). Individuals are and should be defined by more than their affiliation with some group or collective.  The gay left is always up in arms about what this group or that group said or did about some gay issue, but they never have qualms about denouncing or smearing or insulting members of that group in a similar manner.

Share

67 Comments

  1. Hawkins’ observations were truthful and right on the money. And if you are a libtards and feel offended, so be it. The truth hurts.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2013 @ 1:31 pm - July 13, 2013

  2. Oops, that should be “if you are libtards.” But the sentiment still holds.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2013 @ 1:34 pm - July 13, 2013

  3. I think it’s very difficult for people to admit they’re wrong. I know a few liberal Christians who leave me stunned with their adherence to the Democrats, and I rather believe it will be too late for them when they realize the true agenda around here. I feel the same way about friends who are gay. Fact is, when you’re in a minority, you should be all about smaller government.
    I believe in smaller government because it’s the only way we can truly co-exist. I am a born again Christian. I believe the Bible is true. I do not believe government has any business being involved in defining marriage, or marrying people, or trying to tell me which marriages I must attend or work at. With small government, I can easily co-exist with a gay couple living nearby. We happen to like each other very much, but if they decided to throw religious epithets my way or I decided to shriek at them, we can easily avoid each other. When the government feels it has the right to adjudicate between us, it costs us more and will likely never change the root problem: our hearts.
    Big government aficionados on the other hand must depend on emotion and a superficial audience to ram through their legislation. Look at the pro-abortion crowd in Texas, for an example. They are trying to pass laws to force abortion clinics to adhere to basic health standards and are trying to put logical limits on abortion. The liberals are out in droves protesting against CLEAN ABORTION facilities. You have to put some real effort into getting people stupid enough to protest suggesting a back alley abortion is bad and a dirty clinic is good, but I suspect you do it by saying “Those evil conservatives hate women and are always trying to hurt their vaginas.” And when your audience is a group of college students and liberal hippies, they might just be stupid enough to take that at face value.

    Comment by Carolynp — July 13, 2013 @ 2:10 pm - July 13, 2013

  4. Peter H, do you appreciate the irony when you endorse the statement that liberals are hateful and in the process you use the term “libtards?” Post after post and comment after comment here is filled with the most juvenile and, yes, hateful terms for liberals, Obama, Democrats, etc., so the contention that it is liberals who are hateful is what psychologists refer to as projection. (And by the way, I don’t mean this as an indictment of all conservatives. I have many friends across the political spectrum — right, left, and center — who are able to disagree with me and with each other in a respectful and civil manner. For some reason, many posters and commenters here seem unable to do that.)

    And Carolynp, virtually no one is pro-abortion. Many people believe that women should be able to choose an abortion, but almost everyone who takes that position regards an abortion as a tragic outcome. And many people oppose the Texas statute because it is not really designed to make clinics safer — it and similar laws in other states are designed to make it impossible for clinics to operate. (That’s not to say that there aren’t bad clinics, as the Gosnell case showed, but if states were really after safety, they could ask a medically expert, politically neutral body to write a model statute. As with the voter ID laws, there is the political cover story — fighting voter fraud, ensuring clinic safety — and there is the real objective — decreased turnout among groups that tend to vote Democratic, forcing clinics to close whether they are safe or not.)

    Comment by Brubeck — July 13, 2013 @ 3:46 pm - July 13, 2013

  5. So Brubeck, it is your contention that abortion clinics are unable to meet basic health standards that are applied to nutrition clinics and hypnosis practitioners in the area? What gives you the ability to speak to the intent of these legislators? Can you read their minds? What is a “politically neutral body”, someone who agrees with you? No, I suspect you’ve gotten yourself worked up into a lather over some pro-abortion piece you’ve read. This piece of legislation will apply common sense limits to abortion in Texas. Common sense that seems to be lacking among liberals, in my opinion. The only cases of voter fraud I’m aware of are Democrat party operatives that got caught. I thought you guys didn’t believe there was any voter fraud? Maybe we should get a “politically neutral body” to work on that, too?

    Comment by Carolynp — July 13, 2013 @ 3:59 pm - July 13, 2013

  6. The TEA party and its like are a great example of the differences. If someone shows up at a TEA Party protest and has in their possession jars of urine and/or feces, you are 99.99999-ad infinitum % guaranteed it is going to be a leftist counter protestor. See the Texas abortion debacle for examples of leftiod tolerance. But according to the moronic left as informed by the Dems and the media (but I repeat myself), the TEA folks are Terrorists, disrespectful and violent sociopaths. Explains why cleanup after a TEA protest is so easy compared to anything the leftoids do.

    And folks wonder why some of us not of the leftoid mindset have stopped being civil to these cretins. May as well be civil to a howler monkey. Both fling poo, after all.

    Comment by JP Kalishek — July 13, 2013 @ 4:21 pm - July 13, 2013

  7. [...] at Gay Patriot has up an interesting blog post on “From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the [...]

    Pingback by Malala Yousafzai, teen girl shot by Taliban, speaks at the UN and Weekend Links! — July 13, 2013 @ 4:22 pm - July 13, 2013

  8. Carolynp, the lack of actual voter fraud was my point. Fighting voter fraud (which usually doesn’t exist) is the politically correct rationale for voter ID laws that are actually aimed at voter suppression. Health standards are the politically correct rationale for laws that are really designed to shut clinics, regardless of whether they are safe or not. (In contrast to civil rights for gay people, where I can see only one legitimate side, I can completely see both sides of the abortion debate, and I fully acknowledge there are bad clinics (just like there are bad medical facilities of all stripes) — but you had said that there was no logical reason to oppose laws like the Texas law, and you are wrong because this law and similar laws are not good faith attempts to ensure safety, they are a ruse to shut down as many clinics as possible, so it is completely logical for a pro-choice person to oppose them.

    In general, I think the attempt on this blog to imply that liberals are by definition not logical, moral, etc., is simply a lazy way of invalidating liberal arguments without actually having to do the intellectual work. (And sometimes the rhetoric is just embarrassing –”Libtards,” for example, doesn’t so much offend me as amuse me and make me wonder how old the writer is — my elementary school child would regard the term as immature.)

    Comment by Brubeck — July 13, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - July 13, 2013

  9. Ah yes, the ironic moronic lassitude of spewing the talking points as demonstrated by Brubeck. So in your opininon Abortion Clinics are needed as Medical CLinics to keep women out of the back alleys (for their health of course) but making a “Medical” clinic calling itself an abortion clinic meet the standards of every other “medical clinic” even those that don’t perform any invasive procedures is incredibly unfair. Not to mention the ability to kill a child that has done nothing except be conceived and gestate to a period where many that are born live to adulthood is sacrosanct. Yet the leftoids claim we supporters of the death penalty are the hypocrites for killing some SOB who killed people just for the entertainment value. And you claim nearly no one is pro aboprtion? You wouldn’t know it by the way its supporters act.

    Comment by JP Kalishek — July 13, 2013 @ 4:34 pm - July 13, 2013

  10. And JP, I don’t defend people just because they are liberals (or conservatives, or centrists, or whatever). There are good people and bad people, polite people and jerks, across the spectrum. For example, Dick Cheney was shouted down and prevented from speaking a couple of times — I condemn that. I have huge problems with Cheney, but the way to express them is to protest peacefully and quietly when he speaks, or to challenge him during Q&A, not to suppress discussion by shouting him down.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 13, 2013 @ 4:38 pm - July 13, 2013

  11. JP, I don’t think you are a hypocrite for supporting the death penalty. I oppose it, but only because the evidence pretty clearly establishes a huge risk of executing an innocent person — indeed it has probably happened already. Look at all the people convicted of murder who are cleared years and decades later by DNA evidence — if they had been executed it would have been too late.

    But stop with the juvenile insults about monkeys and poo and talking points. Everything you have said comes straight from the standard conservative talking points, so when you accuse me of relying on talking points, you do sound like a screaming hypocrite. Wouldn’t it be better just to respond to people’s ideas without the personal attacks?

    Comment by Brubeck — July 13, 2013 @ 4:48 pm - July 13, 2013

  12. Brubeck, your belief in a lack of voter fraud seems superficial in light of the arrests this year for voter fraud of Democratic party operatives. Maybe you should google Melowese Richardson? I believe liberals were a tad bit more excited about voter fraud in 2000 if memory serves. If I have to present my license to get a beer, presenting it to vote is a rather small issue and polls tend to agree with my view.
    So, you’re saying the bill was a good bill, but it shouldn’t have been passed because your psychic ability tells you their was ill intent? Oh great swami, tell us about the intentions of the senate on gun control. Do you have some all purpose test for intent on legislation? Oh, that’s right! If you agree with it, the legislators are pure and full of goodness; if you disagree with it, they are evil and the legislation should be repealed. Again, you represent perfectly the superficial logic I’ve come to expect from liberals.

    Comment by Carolynp — July 13, 2013 @ 5:21 pm - July 13, 2013

  13. “…their was ill intent…” should be “…there was ill intent…” synonym issues…

    Comment by Carolynp — July 13, 2013 @ 5:22 pm - July 13, 2013

  14. Peter H, do you appreciate the irony when you endorse the statement that liberals are hateful and in the process you use the term “libtards?”

    Not really. I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

    Let me put it this way: I am accepted more as a gay conservative at my local Tea Party convention than I am as a gay conservative at my local gay bar.

    Tell me again who the “hateful” people are??

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2013 @ 5:49 pm - July 13, 2013

  15. So, Brubeck, Voter ID laws are aimed at suppressing the vote of groups who tend to vote Democrat? Really? Now THAT’S a talking point.

    It stuns me that liberals like yourself think it represents some unbearable burden for people to be able to PROVE that they’re ELIGIBLE to vote. So is it the same unbearable burden to present ID to purchase alcohol? Cigarettes? To cash a check? Rent a car? etc.

    Your argument is FALSE, and represents an astounding example of projection on your part, and of your fellow “progressives.” Notice, no name-calling here. Just truth.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 13, 2013 @ 6:00 pm - July 13, 2013

  16. Unfortunately, Brubeck, we know what you endorse and support.

    And we also know what you and your fellow abortion pushers say.

    That’s what makes you funny, Brubeck. You represent perfectly, as Carolynp put it, the complete and total illogic of liberalism that anyone who agrees with you is right and moral and just and anyone who doesn’t is evil and mean and wants women to die on the floor.

    You are demanding that we play by rules that you and your fellow abortion-pushing Obama pigs won’t. You want to fling jars of urine and feces on us and then scream and cry that we’re not acting civilly.

    Meanwhile, why don’t you and your fellow abortion pushers tell us what crime a child has committed that justify snipping its spinal cord? Can you do that, Brubeck?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - July 13, 2013

  17. Texas Lt Governor David Dewhurst Interviewed after big Pro Life Victory in Texas Senate…

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/07/audio-interview-with-texas-lt-governor.html

    Comment by Steve — July 13, 2013 @ 6:11 pm - July 13, 2013

  18. One has to remember, Bastiat, that pigs like Brubeck are going to act like pigs.

    Brubeck opposes voter ID for one reason and one reason only: it blocks his ability to commit fraud on behalf of the Obama Party. That’s it.

    The hilarity comes when Brubeck reveals his inherent racism by his statement that minorities are too stupid, ignorant, and lazy to have IDs — ignoring, of course, the fact that you cannot even be employed legally in this country without having an ID.

    Brubeck wants fraud. He supports fraud. He is going to make every excuse in the book to commit fraud, because he wants power. Getting political power is all that matters to Brubeck and his fellow liberal pigs.

    Why? Because they want to use that power to hurt us. Brubeck has already screamed here that conservatives should be harassed by the IRS and DOJ and EPA. He wants our taxes hiked, our businesses punished, and his people like Lois Lerner at the IRS using the law to punish us for not voting liberal.

    Brubeck is a sick, deluded individual. He justifies his delusion by the sick insistence that all conservatives and Republicans are Nazis, just as is his party’s dogma. His fellow Obama supporters openly scream for Republicans to kill themselves.

    We have to realize that Brubeck is not a moral, decent, or intelligent person. He is an insane, sick bigot who wants us dead, and he intends to use the government to destroy us.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2013 @ 6:14 pm - July 13, 2013

  19. Oh, and we must not forget the Obama administration’s “bullying czar”, fully endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, stating that he wants all Republicans dead.

    So it’s rather hilarious that Brubeck is here whining about intellectual arguments when he and his party simply want to kill their political opponents.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2013 @ 6:21 pm - July 13, 2013

  20. Bastiat, there has been a great deal of research that has documented the disenfranchising effect the state voter IDs laws are likely to have. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t design a law that would avoid much of that disenfranchising effect. You could, for example, say that a voter ID law would not take effect until the state had distributed, free of charge, IDs to, say, 99 percent of valid voters who lack other forms of accepted ID — just like conservatives don’t want a path to citizenship to start until the border is “x” percent secure. You could require continued outreach to make sure that newly eligible voters were not unfairly disenfranchised.

    But of course that is not the way these laws are designed, because the purpose isn’t really to protect ballot box integrity, it is to suppress the voting power of certain groups. The Pennsylvania House GOP leader gave away the game when he bragged about how the passage of a voter ID law was going to give Pennsylvania to Romney (although of course it didn’t work out that way).

    And it’s not just the voter ID laws — it’s the shortening of early voting hours in states like Florida, or the attempt in Ohio to have extended voting hours only in Republican counties, to pick just a couple of other examples.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 13, 2013 @ 6:54 pm - July 13, 2013

  21. 6. All leftist policies are based on selfishness.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2013 @ 6:57 pm - July 13, 2013

  22. Democrats have no trouble organizing “Voter Registration Drives.” Organizing “Get Your Voter ID Drives” would be no more difficult.

    But we all know the real reason Democrats oppose voter ID; and it has nothing to so with legal voters who somehow are able to function in modern society with no photo ID.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2013 @ 6:59 pm - July 13, 2013

  23. no one is pro-abortion.

    Another leftist myth easily debunked by the actions of leftists.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2013 @ 7:01 pm - July 13, 2013

  24. For some reason, many posters and commenters here seem unable to do that.

    I think most people who comment here probably have left-leaning friends/family members that they like/love. I do, and I don’t dislike them; I dislike their views. When I refer to “leftists,” I refer to a personification of leftism, which may happen to resemble actual people that I don’t associate with in any way (such as these pro-abortion protesters in Texas). It isn’t making a generalization, but it would be tedious to make an exception every time for decent leftists. And you can’t say that leftists don’t do the same thing. When I see them refer to “conservatives,” it is often clear in context that they are referring to a certain subset of conservatives who demonstrate a particular behaviour, or to a personification of the conservative ideology (or how they perceive it).

    but almost everyone who takes that position regards an abortion as a tragic outcome.

    Then why should it be allowed to happen for any reason? If it is such a tragedy, isn’t it reasonable to support some restrictions on it? And why is it a tragedy for a single celled organism or a very small organism that isn’t a human (i.e. a human fetus) to be killed?

    As with the voter ID laws, there is the political cover story — fighting voter fraud, ensuring clinic safety — and there is the real objective — decreased turnout among groups that tend to vote Democratic

    Anyone who is incapable of getting some kind of ID probably shouldn’t be voting anyway. Also, we require ID to vote in Canada; what is the explanation for that? And what about all the other things ID is required to do? Finally, shouldn’t elections be guarded against fraud, regardless of how frequent it is? Any fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate vote, making the person who cast that legitimate vote disinfranchised. I would think elections are important enough to ensure the integrity of.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 13, 2013 @ 7:03 pm - July 13, 2013

  25. You could, for example, say that a voter ID law would not take effect until the state had distributed, free of charge, IDs to, say, 99 percent of valid voters who lack other forms of accepted ID

    Unfortunately for Brubeck’s argument, what you need to prove yourself a valid voter in the vast majority of cases also counts as an accepted ID.

    So what Brubeck is doing is trying to stall so he can get votes from INVALID voters, which is the main thing that voter ID blocks. Voter ID would prevent the casting of multiple ballots and it would also prevent illegal immigrants from voting, especially since we know Brubeck and the Barack Obama Party pay them to do so and drive them around in vans to multiple locations.

    Again, what has to happen is this. Brubeck supports fraud; therefore, Republicans need to start committing fraud, voting multiple times, voter harassment and intimidation such as was done by the Obama-supporting Black Panthers, throwing away the ballots of Obama supporters as Obama supporters threw away the ballots of Republican voters, massive voter registration fraud as carried out by ACORN and other Obama Party organizations, demand for same-day ballots at multiple locations as is done by Obama voters, and all the other games and tricks that the disgusting filth Brubeck carries out.

    We can no longer be moral about this. Brubeck isn’t. Brubeck commits fraud and will not stop until fraud becomes painful for him and his Obama party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2013 @ 7:10 pm - July 13, 2013

  26. Whenever anybody tells me there is no voter fraud, I just refer them to this webpage. http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

    Comment by Juan — July 13, 2013 @ 7:24 pm - July 13, 2013

  27. Wow, we’ve got a lively discussion developing for a Saturday afternoon. I’m not going to be checking in too often this evening, but I did want to remind everyone once again of our community standards. No one should be referring to another commenter as a “pig,” not even indirectly, when that commenter is engaged in the discussion.

    So far Brubeck has made some assertions and asked some questions which many people have answered or challenged or questioned or argued against or presented evidence to refute, as they should. There’s no need for other commenters to engage in any name-calling when they respond.

    Comment by Kurt — July 13, 2013 @ 7:39 pm - July 13, 2013

  28. [i]I think most people who comment here probably have left-leaning friends/family members that they like/love.[/i]

    Yes, we do. And we went to college where we were surrounded by left-wingers, and left-wing faculty and staff. When we assert what we know about the left to be true, it isn’t coming from a vacuum. I think we know the left far better than the left knows us.

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2013 @ 7:46 pm - July 13, 2013

  29. Rattlesnake asks a good question. If the pro-abort side really believes that what is being destroyed is just a “clump of cells” or a parasite as many pro-aborts describe it, then what’s up with the “we don’t really support abortion” Kabuki dance? If there is nothing wrong with getting an abortion, then why should there be anything wrong with being “pro-abortion?” It should be no different than being “pro-manicure.”

    So, what gives?

    Comment by V the K — July 13, 2013 @ 7:50 pm - July 13, 2013

  30. V the K writes: Yes, we do. And we went to college where we were surrounded by left-wingers, and left-wing faculty and staff. When we assert what we know about the left to be true, it isn’t coming from a vacuum. I think we know the left far better than the left knows us.

    Isn’t that the truth! Some of us not only went to school with lots of left-wingers, but we work with lots of them on a daily basis, or we have them as Facebook friends, etc. And some of us even habitually look at left-wing blogs and publications and “journalists” to see what they are saying on a regular basis.

    Comment by Kurt — July 13, 2013 @ 7:51 pm - July 13, 2013

  31. ” If the pro-abort side really believes that what is being destroyed is just a “clump of cells” or a parasite as many pro-aborts describe it, then what’s up with the “we don’t really support abortion” Kabuki dance? If there is nothing wrong with getting an abortion, then why should there be anything wrong with being “pro-abortion?”

    Is anyone ever “pro” a medical procedure? I don’t believe I ever met an advance ofany type of surgery.

    Abortion is of the issues that clearly show the fake conservatives dont actuality want a smaller government. In this case the fake cons run to their gov to correct what their religion tells them is wrong. They beg at the alter of politics to correct something at the behest of their religious leaders.

    For me abortion is horrible and should be illegal. I have given my time and money to support young mothers do the right thing. But then we as a society must acknowledge that the child is no longer the individual’s responsibility. But instead the society.

    Comment by mike — July 13, 2013 @ 8:59 pm - July 13, 2013

  32. If your sample size is people who comment on political articles on the Internet, I’m sure you could hate everyone of every political stripe pretty easier and quickly.

    Comment by Tim in MT — July 13, 2013 @ 9:20 pm - July 13, 2013

  33. Abortion is of the issues that clearly show the fake conservatives dont actuality want a smaller government.

    Conservatives don’t want a small government for the sake of a small government. Conservatives want a government that enusres that no one’s rights are infringed upon, to the extent that that is possible. That includes the right all humans (including human feti, which have unique human DNA) have to life.

    In this case the fake cons run to their gov to correct what their religion tells them is wrong.

    I’ve been to church maybe two or three times in my life (when I was a kid and visiting my Grandma). I am not the least bit religious, and I was not raised in a religious manner. And yet, the only time I think abortion is permissible is when the mother’s life is in danger. Now, obviously, my opposition to abortion doesn’t come from religion. It comes from my understanding of science. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, it forms a zygote. That zygote gets DNA from the sperm, and from the egg. In total, its DNA is different from both that of the father and the mother; it is unique, human DNA. Over the next few months, functional organs begin to develop, including a brain, that begins to show primitive activity at about 6 weeks, and gradually becomes more advanced. So what if the zygote or fetus doesn’t resemble an actual human; what is the rational distinction between them? The DNA is what causes the growth of the zygote into a fully grown human, and that is present at conception.

    For me abortion is horrible and should be illegal.

    Running to your government to correct what your religion tells you is wrong, huh? (Note: I inferred that that is why you think abortion is wrong based on what you just said).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 13, 2013 @ 11:16 pm - July 13, 2013

  34. Oops; forgot this:

    Is anyone ever “pro” a medical procedure?

    If it saves someone’s life, yes.

    And please look at those deranged protesters in Texas and tell me that they aren’t “pro abortion.” It is quite obvious that they are quite fervently “pro abortion.” Either that, or they are on crystal meth.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — July 13, 2013 @ 11:19 pm - July 13, 2013

  35. “Abortion is of the issues that clearly show the fake conservatives dont actuality want a smaller government. In this case the fake cons run to their gov to correct what their religion tells them is wrong.” I believe it’s the constitution that defends our right to life. It is science that tells us that an unborn child has every facet of a newborn via genetic research. You have no more right to take an unborn child’s life than you have to take mine. I believe the only reason to have government is to protect us from those who would kill us because we are inconvenient. That is the conservative argument against abortion, it is nuanced, but it is not religiously based.

    Comment by Carolynp — July 13, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - July 13, 2013

  36. Peter H: You took the comment right out of my head, it must be magic. I actually HAD gay friends who stopped talking to me when they discovered I was conservative.

    Comment by Mike — July 14, 2013 @ 5:09 am - July 14, 2013

  37. Brubeck @ #4:

    so the contention that it is liberals who are hateful is what psychologists refer to as projection.

    Whoa! Where is the “fact” in this blanket blast? This little zinger was aimed at Peter H and it effectively turns the topic of being “hateful” back on him for using the term libtards. So, apparently one must be as pure as the wind driven snow when dealing with the semantics of corruption when addressing the liberals. But, it is not required when the liberals address conservatives. Do you know why this is so? Alinsky. Hold the conservatives to high standards which you do not claim for yourself.

    Many people believe that women should be able to choose an abortion, but almost everyone who takes that position regards an abortion as a tragic outcome.

    This is unctuous, eel slime. People keeping abortion readily available are consumed with abortion being a “tragic” outcome? Cry me a river. Talk. Just talk. It is more likely that these “saddened” abortion supporters see a surprise pregnancy as “tragic” and the killing of the fetus as the “reasonable” way of dealing with the “tragedy.”

    Oh, my, lets not call anyone pro-abortion. OK? After all, it is only a “choice” and once the little lady has made the “choice” she is due the respect of “privacy” over killing the fetus to end the “tragic” pregnancy. It is even extended to the living, viable fetus that pops out in the “choice” and “privacy” session. Kill it on the floor.

    And many people oppose the Texas statute because it is not really designed to make clinics safer — it and similar laws in other states are designed to make it impossible for clinics to operate.

    Yea, right. How ridiculous is it to require that a “clinic” messing around with a woman’s reproductive parts be equipped to handle botched abortions in a hospital like manner or be close enough to a hospital to hike the “choice” and “privacy” victim over to the emergency room where real doctors can go to work?

    If Brubecks smooth talking sways anyone here, that anyone is a good candidate for libtard affiliation.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 9:11 am - July 14, 2013

  38. Brubeck @ #8:

    In general, I think the attempt on this blog to imply that liberals are by definition not logical, moral, etc., is simply a lazy way of invalidating liberal arguments without actually having to do the intellectual work.

    Guess what, pal, I and many others here are ready, willing and able to invalidate liberal arguments. Our constant complaint is that liberals pose no arguments except those based on sweeping generalizations, quoting polls and pushing emotional talking points spin.

    So far, you have not presented a logical argument. Here is your enlightened pap: Fighting voter fraud (which usually doesn’t exist) and voter ID laws that are actually aimed at voter suppression. and Health standards are the politically correct rationale for laws that are really designed to shut clinics, regardless of whether they are safe or not.

    Those are not premises. They are conclusions. When talking about lazy in the logic and morality department, you seem to be the owner of the dunce cap.

    How about a little reasoned debate without all the parade of conclusions? Either you can do it or you prefer the libtard route of pitching thinly veiled accusations at those of us who know why we disagree about abortion as it stands and why voter ID is virtually no impediment to voting and why Obamacare is rife with deception and full of costs that will further disrupt the process of anything remotely resembling an act that results in “affordable care.”

    You are what I call a concept monkey. You dwell in a land where words with transitory meanings are the coin of the realm and you use them as ammunition without any effort to define their meaning or context. “Hope and Change” for a Shri’a adherent is a tad different than “hope and change” for an activist atheist. But that is the core problem with wrapping yourself up in ideological demagoguery and believing your definition of the concept is the correct reality.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 9:39 am - July 14, 2013

  39. Brubeck @ #11:

    Everything you have said comes straight from the standard conservative talking points, so when you accuse me of relying on talking points, you do sound like a screaming hypocrite. Wouldn’t it be better just to respond to people’s ideas without the personal attacks?

    Wow! A talking points talk off! You gotta love it. Brubeck says someone is using talking points and that makes that someone a hypocrite if that someone accuses Brubeck of using talking points.

    So, lets stop and shift the “debate” and sort out the talking points back and forth and see who has the greater weight of talking points on their list and….. oh, my, look …. is that the Kardashians at the White House?

    But, when responding to “people’s ideas”, let us not get into personal attacks. OK? OK. Throwing out a conclusion, however, is not an idea. It is a conclusion. Get it? Your mind is made up and the facts do not interest you. Understand? Until you figure that out, you are highly susceptible to personal attack for being dense.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 9:49 am - July 14, 2013

  40. [...] Gay Patriot astutely points out the following: [...]

    Pingback by Religio-Political Talk (RPT) Mean Spirited Leftist: As They Become MORE Secular, They Will Get Meaner & More Violent — July 14, 2013 @ 11:04 am - July 14, 2013

  41. Here is Al Sharpton last night after the Zimmerman verdict came in:

    “Well, I think that this is an atrocity,” said Sharpton. “I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed and someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies. … Even at trial when he is exposed over and over again as a liar, he is acquitted. This is a sad day in the country. I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts. Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. But this is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.”

    I will parse this to give Brubeck a taste of how liberals debate.

    1.) “this is an atrocity” as opposed to Twana Bawley, Crown Heights and the Duke LaCrosse lynching and there is no true hypocrisy in the Reverend Al taking the moral high ground. Right? He was an accepted Democrat candidate in the presidential primaries and is a pillar of political commentary on MSNBC.

    2.) Trayvon was just bringing Skittles and iced tea home to his brother, according to Sharpton. The prosecution failed to convince the jury that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon or jumped Trayvon or was stuck to him like glue. Nevermind; that’s Sharpton’s “set of facts” and he is sticking to them.

    3.) What a pitiful prosecution they had if Zimmerman lied, was caught in “all kinds of inconsistencies” and the prosecution couldn’t get the jury on board. Or, maybe, Sharpton alone, through his brilliance, has detected the lies and all kinds of inconsistencies which he has failed to document.

    4.) Zimmerman not being convicted “is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country” according to Sharpton. So, how are we to understand the Sharpton definition of “justice”? If the black guy loses, it isn’t “justice”.

    5.) “…we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts.” Translation: we are going to beat this dead horse until we get the “justice” we want.

    This is government as bully and peace at the barrel of the riot gun threat. That is how liberals work. Create their facts, stick to them, personalize them and polarize the debate with threats.

    Oh, wait, there is an expert resource on this: Alinsky: • “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” • “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” • “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. • “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. • “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Low information “victims” love to riot. • “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” • “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. Perception is reality. • “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    This is the liberal process and it is says nothing about being moral, truthful, logical, forgiving, or accepting. But how liberals do scream like stuck pigs when they are treated to a bit of their own tactics.

    That is how they come to be labeled as “libtards.” They do the same things over and over again thinking they have hit on a winning formula that does not involve trustworthiness, dependability, responsibility, integrity, truthfulness, patience, humility, prudence, restraint or kindness.

    Libtards lust for power in order to control the sheeple according to their current, fadish view of “correctness”. They are prideful and lash out with the politics of personal destruction against those who stand in their way. Their wrath is both verbalized and implanted by way of insidious actions meant to undermine their opposition. They have lying tongues. They scheme and devise wicked plots. They sow discord. They plant festering mischief. They twist the context to fit their version of the truth and justify their lies. They refuse to practice circumspection and correct their errors in any sense of obedience to promoting a better solution.

    They are split between being snakes and ideologues who accept whatever their demagogues feed them.

    If this were not the case, the average liberal would be confident and well equipped to come here and state his case in a logical manner without all the conclusions stated as facts. But, they can’t. It would be interesting to find just one liberal who can do so. Just one.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 1:04 pm - July 14, 2013

  42. The George Zimmerman acquittal shows the left’s true face.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2013 @ 1:40 pm - July 14, 2013

  43. “For me murder of elderly parents and no-longer-loved spouses is horrible and should be illegal. But then we as a society must acknowledge that those people are no longer the individual’s responsibility. But instead the society.”

    Fixed that for you, mike.

    Comment by pst314 — July 14, 2013 @ 2:26 pm - July 14, 2013

  44. “this quaint idea that leftists have good intentions”

    George Will has noted that if you want to know how much liberals really believe in freedom of speech, look to college campuses where PC speech codes are used to silence and punish dissent.

    As recent news has shown us, this is also true of other institutions dominated by liberals, such as the IRS, OSHA, EPA, the DOJ’s civil rights division, and so on.

    Official punishment of thought criminals, institutional tolerance of mob violence against enemies of the left, there really is no longer any doubt about the true nature of the left.

    Comment by pst314 — July 14, 2013 @ 2:33 pm - July 14, 2013

  45. I actually HAD gay friends who stopped talking to me when they discovered I was conservative.

    Welcome to my world, Mike. :-)

    I’ve actually had TRICKS who stopped coming over when they discovered I was a conservative. Not kidding, either.

    As I’ve always said – hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2013 @ 4:10 pm - July 14, 2013

  46. And as far as Al Sharpton goes, I will quote Larry Elder’s tweet to Brit Hume: “Brit, somebody tell Al Sharpton’s the bank’s on the line. His race card has expired.”

    For me, the Zimmerman verdict was sweet revenge for the travesty that was the O.J. Simpson trial. Deal with it, race-baiters.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2013 @ 4:14 pm - July 14, 2013

  47. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire

    Pretty much says it all, does it not heliotrope, Peter H, pst314, rattlesnake, carolyn and anyone else who can actually think that I may have left out?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 14, 2013 @ 5:09 pm - July 14, 2013

  48. My “liberal” boyfriend is often surprised to find out how liberal he is. At first, when he heard about Wal-Mart pulling out of DC because the city council wanted to force them to pay associates 12.50 per hour, he thought Wal-Mart was in the wrong. Because he relies on the MFM for news, he didn’t know the City Council had singled out Wal-Mart for this requirement while exempting other big box retailers. When he found that out, he changed his mind.

    Now, if I can get him past the whole silly notion of a Government-mandated “living wage” I will be making progress.

    Comment by V the K — July 14, 2013 @ 5:29 pm - July 14, 2013

  49. Hawkin’s points are spot-on. And none of them are worded any more nastily or viciously than language Lefties use all the time.

    While there is back and forth, even on this blog, over the comments when directed at Liberals — look how they speak about Conservatives. We have a Divider in Chief in the White House, so-called “tolerant” Liberals with jars of urine and feces they bring to throw at pro-life activists … it’s time to Alinsky the hell out of the Left. It’s high time to use the same tactics, and watch them whine and cry about it.

    What else can they do? They certainly can’t object on moral grounds — these are the tactics they have used for decades.

    If these “Uncomfortable Truths” bother Liberals, they can always try not living down to them …

    Comment by Acethepug — July 14, 2013 @ 5:52 pm - July 14, 2013

  50. Pretty much says it all, does it not heliotrope, Peter H, pst314, rattlesnake, carolyn and anyone else who can actually think that I may have left out?

    Not really, Bastinado – I don’t agree with your premise. In fact, I’ll match you quote-for-quote:

    “Moral values are the motive power of a man’s actions. By pronouncing moral judgment, one protects the clarity of one’s own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue.

    “In short – judge, and prepare to be judged. One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.” — Ayn Rand

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2013 @ 7:27 pm - July 14, 2013

  51. I don’t think we disagree, Peter…my quote simply points out that we’re not allowed to criticize so-called “progressives,” because they occupy such a lofty moral perch that disagreement with them makes us conservative/libertarian types, by definition, evil.

    And as much as I love Ayn Rand, I’ve never seen that particular quote before, but it’s a good one!

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 14, 2013 @ 8:02 pm - July 14, 2013

  52. [...] they can continue to profit from racial demagoguery. In one of the comments on my last post, our regular commenter Heliotrope provided a skillful analysis of Al Sharpton’s statement about…, relating it back to Alinsky’s rules.  Heliotrope observes: Libtards lust for power in [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Zimmerman Verdict and Obama — July 14, 2013 @ 9:17 pm - July 14, 2013

  53. Peter Hughes,

    I read Bastiat Fan as being in accord with and supporting you.

    Bastiat Fan,

    I am glad to be introduces with the Voltaire quote. Thanks.

    Comment by heliotrope — July 14, 2013 @ 11:02 pm - July 14, 2013

  54. Being a gamer, most of my counterparts are very liberal. I was accused of being a racist by one of them, because I believed there was insuficient evidence to provide reasonable doubt. I then asked her why she hated Hispancis, since, clearly by her standards, it was the only reason she supported the prosecution. That set her sputtering.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 15, 2013 @ 7:49 am - July 15, 2013

  55. My apologies if it appears that I misinterpreted Bas’s quote, but I don’t see the relevancy of limiting discourse if it is “defined” by one side.

    However, I am glad that we all see eye-to-eye on this issue. The moral problem with libtards is just that – they have NO morals to speak of.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 15, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  56. Hi Kurt,
    I would like to address your original post, if I may.

    “Now while the language in those observations is strong enough that Hawkins could be accused of engaging in hyperbole, I think a certain amount of strong language is necessary for describing leftist rhetoric and means of argumentation. There’s no need to take my word for it, though, read the whole thing and decide for yourself.”

    I read the article that you based your post on, as you suggested your readers do, and I agree–it is quite hyperbolic. But what I don’t get is that you appear to be enamoured with an “article” that shows the very rhetorical and argumentative excesses of which you disapprove in those on the Left Wing.

    One example of this rhetorical excess: “4) Most liberals don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.” The strategy is to offer an example or two, then generalize to “MOST.”I can grant “some” or “many”, but “most”? The article does not prove that case, but it does speak to the beliefs of those who agree with its claims.

    The “argument” Mr. Hawkins makes also fails for another reasons:

    Assume that conservative critics are correct about DDT, liberals supported this policy in 1972, and then did nothing to change it when it became clear that the costs of banning DDT were greater than letting people use it.

    Aside from the fact that the person in charge of this effort was appointed by Nixon during his Republican administration which banned DDT use, the question I want to ask is: If Mr. Hawkins is right that “[c]onservatives would be happy to reverse that ban,” why didn’t conservatives reverse the ban when they have had the opportunities to do so, say in 1981, or 1991, or 2001? I have read that some limited action was taken in 2006 by USAID (but not by the Federal Government as a whole). Conservatives would, according to Mr. Hawkins’ “logic” be equally as culpable as liberals in this situation, having failed to “reverse this ban” for 34+ years.

    Given the argumentative style of Mr. Hawkins, one could “argue” that he could just as easily said: “4. Most conservatives don’t care if the policies they advocate work or not.” It is a claim as hyperbolic and unsubstantiated as Mr. Hawkins’ original claim, that you base much of your post on.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - July 15, 2013

  57. Passing By: I don’t have time to write a full response at the moment, but I’d say some of this has come up already in the comments, and many others have addressed the point in response to Brubeck’s objections to the post.

    I would say that I’ve come to appreciate the position that, when discussing the contemporary left, a certain amount of hyperbole and generalization is warranted on the grounds that we should know that they aren’t going to abandon their use of Alinskyite tactics and means of argumentation. So if we don’t respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing, they’re going to keep doing it.

    With regard to the one example you cited, though, I would acknowledge that Hawkins could have chosen many more and better examples (of liberals not caring about the effectiveness of their policies) instead, but that doesn’t mean his point is invalid, only that he didn’t do a good job of arguing for it. I would say, though, that the point has resonance with anyone who has seen things like the failed Obama “stimulus” (which included that gem “cash for clunkers”) or Obamacare, or even the “immigration reform” legislation. The point has resonance with anyone who looks at a city like Chicago which has a high crime and murder rate along with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

    Comment by Kurt — July 15, 2013 @ 4:52 pm - July 15, 2013

  58. I read the article that you based your post on, as you suggested your readers do, and I agree–it is quite hyperbolic. But what I don’t get is that you appear to be enamoured with an “article” that shows the very rhetorical and argumentative excesses of which you disapprove in those on the Left Wing.

    Yup.

    Because the only thing you respect and will respond to, Passing By, is the screaming hate rhetoric that spews out of the mouth of your leftist owners.

    And since you and your fellow leftists respect only lies, slander, hypocrisy, and violence, we fully intend to use the same against you.

    Yes, we do know better. But you don’t respond to “better”. You and your fellow leftists are malicious and destructive children, brats who want what they want when they want it and are going to verbally and physically attack its parents, teachers, and supervisors until they get it.

    You had your chance to act like a civilized human being and curb your howler monkeys. You instead chose to harangue us about NOT doing so while you clapped and cheered for your feces-flinging leaders Pelosi, Reid, and Obama calling conservatives racists, murderers, liars, and hypocrites.

    Since that’s how you want to play, that’s what you’re now going to get.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2013 @ 5:22 pm - July 15, 2013

  59. Idiot Cas, showing how it is a rational debater, unlike the rest of us who merely “state our beliefs”, arrives once again with its tiresome tu quoque rationalizations.
    It thinks it holds the moral and intellectual high ground, but when it hits ‘Say It!’ and launches yet another round of “Nuh uh, yooz guys do it, too!”, all I can see is a lump of steaming brown circling the bowl.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 6:07 pm - July 15, 2013

  60. Hi Kurt,
    “So if we don’t respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing, they’re going to keep doing it.”

    As far as I can tell, that means that using the same tactics back–in the name of maintaining competitive equality is OK with you. Is that right? We get a good example of this kind of tactic from NDT at #58. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    “I would say, though, that the point has resonance with anyone who has seen things like the failed Obama “stimulus”.”

    This sounds more like an article of faith than an argument, Kurt. You and I do not see the same events in the same way–so our views of the stimulus package differ. The point is that Hawkins did not choose those examples that you would like him to; rather he chose the examples he did to make his point–one of which I took issue with. If the examples he chooses are of “lesser” quality than otherwise does it have any impact on his argument? Even if you don’t think it matters, I think it does.

    I made two arguments–one concerning the willingness of those on the right to “respond forcefully and call them on what they’re doing” by using the tactics that they perceive the other side using; and the other on how these very tactics could be swung back your way to label conservatives (doing a little work with one example Hawkins uses)–unfairly–I might add, with the same brush that Hawkins uses in his article.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  61. Ditto #59

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - July 15, 2013

  62. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    Comment by Passing By Execrable POS — July 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

    Oh, it’s very successful—–it’s worked so well for the left that we thought we might give it a try ourselves.
    And scum like you don’t hold up to it very well.

    The old saw is true: you can dish it out, but you sure as s**t can’t take it. And that’s why we’re going to keep serving it up to you: it will have you in retreat to the places that you and yours belong—under rocks and in the weeds, where you can’t do any more damage to this country.

    And if you find the written word so ominous and intimidating, just wait for the next lawless riot/uprising by you and your fellow herd animals when it occurs out here in the ‘real’ world.
    Those results are really going to upset you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 6:54 pm - July 15, 2013

  63. Note the text book use of Alinsky tactics by Passing By @60.

    Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Thank you for being such a stunning example for us, Passing By.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — July 15, 2013 @ 8:55 pm - July 15, 2013

  64. As far as I can tell, that means that using the same tactics back–in the name of maintaining competitive equality is OK with you. Is that right? We get a good example of this kind of tactic from NDT at #58. Do you think this is a successful approach? I don’t.

    Actually, you do, Passing By, as is shown by your screaming and ranting that Romney was a murderer and Romney was a tax cheat.

    Neither of those are logical, rational, or truthful arguments, but you made them, voted based on them, and justified them as moral later by claiming that Obama should be allowed to do anything to win.

    So I think it’s high time conservatives started playing the game. You and your Obama Party block voter IDs so you can vote multiple times and in multiple locations; conservatives need to do the same, and more of it.

    You and your Obama Party make false claims of rape to slander conservatives; conservatives need to make claims of the same and worse to slander and destroy liberals’ reputations.

    You and your Obama Party leak confidential government information, i.e. Joe the Plumber, NOM, and so forth, to harass and harm your political enemies; conservatives in government should leak even more and more regularly.

    You and your Lois Lerner openly brag about weaponizing and using IRS letters to coerce and punish conservatives; conservatives should weaponize all state and local governments they control and harass the living sh*t out of every Obama Party member and voter.

    Do you understand this, blathering idiot Passing By? You wanted a war, you got one. You want lawlessness, you’ll get it. And you can scream and b*tch and cry and whine about why conservatives shouldn’t do any of those things, but as long as you and your pathetic sick liberal friends continue to do it, we will punch back twice as hard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2013 @ 9:54 pm - July 15, 2013

  65. Hi Bastiat Fan,
    “Thank you for being such a stunning example for us, Passing By.”
    As long as you can see that this is an illness shared by those on the right, no worries.

    Comment by Passing By — July 15, 2013 @ 11:19 pm - July 15, 2013

  66. As long as you can see that this is an illness shared by those on the right, no worries.

    Comment by Passing By The Worthless ‘It’ of GayPatriot — July 15, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

    You got the first part right, scumbag—you are ill.

    The second part—wrong as usual.

    Comment by Jman1961 — July 15, 2013 @ 11:38 pm - July 15, 2013

  67. [...] From the comments: What we must acknowledge about the left [...]

    Pingback by Tuesday thoughts and news | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots — July 16, 2013 @ 3:47 am - July 16, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.